Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
When the kings and heads of state of 22 nations meet for the Arab League Summit in Tunisia later this month, they will be asked to consider several amendments to the 1994 Arab Charter on Human Rights. The amendments strengthen the Charter by affirming every individual's right to life; the right to fair trial; the legal status of crime and punishment; the right to political asylum without extradition; and prohibitions on torture, deportation, and revoking citizenship. They also strengthen workers' rights and refer more explicitly to the equal rights of men and women.
One of the problems facing these modest amendments is that no Arab state has yet ratified the 1994 Charter. Another is that if the amendments are approved, the legislatures of seven member states will have to ratify the revised charter for it to come into force. Despite the virtually incessant talk of ‘reform’ in the region, there is little optimism that this will happen any time soon.
No doubt the Summit’s closing communiqué will proclaim yet again the myth of Arab unity. But the League is as deeply divided over the issue of democratization and human rights as it is over almost every major issue facing the Middle East.
For example, despite the fact that the League was formed in 1945 as a pan-Arab organization to challenge the emergence of Israel, members are far from unanimous even about the Israel-Palestine issue. Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel, while most Arab states are still at war. Arab League communiqués profess support for the Palestinian cause, but many League members wish the problem would just go away. The American invasion of Iraq was opposed by most League members, but not by all. Declarations against the war were undermined by the help some member states gave the US-led invasion force, while Saddam's opponents -- mainly Gulf states like Kuwait -- accused the League of siding with the now-ousted Iraqi leader The ‘war on terror’ is being supported actively by some League members, and supported largely in rhetoric by others. Some League members see the United States as the enemy of Islam, others as its ultimate protector – and largest financial donor. These are but a few of the conflicts and contradictions that have made the Arab League all but irrelevant to the future of their neighborhood.
Yet the importance of the human rights amendments should not be underestimated. The proposed amendments are for the first time based on the recommendations of independent Arab human rights experts. Even if the amendments are ratified, they will amount to ‘human rights lite’ because the amended Charter will still fall far short of constituting a viable regional framework. For example, the League’s Human Rights Committee rejected independent some of their experts’ recommendations relating to fair trials, compensation for unlawful detention, and free elections. Furthermore, Arab governments will still retain wide latitude to suspend the Charter's provisions to protect "the national security and economy, public order" or at times of "public emergency." The Charter also lacks any enforcement mechanisms, unlike those of other regional groups such as the European Union (EU), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Yet ratification of the amendments could represent an important step toward democratization from within.
The Middle East is rife these days with talk of reform and some countries have indeed taken the first baby steps in that direction. Most governments in the region have taken a negative view of President Bush’s efforts to ‘democratize’ the Middle East and North Africa, viewing the initiative as being ‘imposed from outside’. The new human rights amendments, however, have come from Arabs for Arabs. Their ratification would signify the region’s seriousness to advance this necessary objective.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE: POT AND KETTLE?
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
Critics of The US State Department’s recently released Human Rights Report for 2003 are charging that the Report fails to address human rights abuses in the United States. Some believe that this omission exposes a current American double standard, and raises the question of whether the US has the credibility to launch its Greater Middle East Initiative.
The Initiative, expected to be proposed at the G8 summit in June, is a key element of President Bush’s effort to ‘democratize’ the Middle East. It has been widely criticized by Arab governments in the region as a neo-colonialist effort to impose an American model of democracy on a group of widely differing sovereign states. Now, some Arab spokesmen – as well as a number of US human rights groups – are asking whether the pot should be allowed to call the kettle black.
The double-standard accusation stems from measures taken by the US in the ‘war on terror’ since 9/11. It includes the Government’s enforcement of some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, particularly sneak-and-peek search and surveillance, indefinite detention of US citizens without charge or access to lawyers, rounding up of hundreds of Muslims on suspicion of immigration violations, rules announced by the Pentagon for its upcoming Military Tribunals, and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Detention of US citizens is seen by human rights groups as a particularly egregious breach of Constitutional protections. Two citizens, Jose Padilla and Yasser Esam Hamdi, have been classified as enemy combatants and held incommunicado in US military brigs for nearly two years. While the Administration had previously insisted that national security would be harmed if the military’s interrogation of Hamdi and Padilla were interrupted by visits from lawyers, it recently decided that this danger no longer existed, and granted the men access to their attorneys. At the same time, the Administration is taking their case to the Supreme Court, where it will claim that there are no legal limits to its power over terrorist suspects. The Court is being asked to rule on whether US citizens can be subject to unconstrained executive authority.
However, even in granting the two men access to counsel, the Pentagon emphasizes that it is doing so “as a matter of discretion and military authority.” It contends that neither domestic nor international law compels such access. According to Jamie Fellner, Director of the US Program for Human Rights Watch, “under the restrictive rules imposed by the Pentagon, the legal visits are nothing more than an empty façade… Although the two men can see and speak with their lawyers, they cannot consult with them in any meaningful way.”
The reason, Fellner says, is that “under the Pentagon’s rules, the meetings between lawyers and these particular clients are not confidential. Rather than the customary attorney-client privilege, which protects the secrecy of discussions between lawyers and the people they represent, these meetings are completely open to the military. Indeed, a military official is present at each meeting, and everything is videotaped and audio-recorded….” Complicating matters further, under the Pentagon’s restrictions, every word Hamdi says to his lawyer is classified. After holding a ninety-minute meeting under these restrictions, Frank Dunham, Hamdi’s lawyer, says he still does not know his client’s version of the facts – and cannot ask with military representatives present.
The Pentagon indicated to Dunham that anything Hamdi revealed would not be used against him in a criminal prosecution. But Hamdi is not being prosecuted—and anything he says could affect the military’s determination as to whether his continued detention is warranted. The Pentagon’s rules cripple Dunham’s ability to build a case for Hamdi’s release from detention.
The Pentagon has also refused to allow three leading human rights groups to attend and observe military commission trials of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
In a letter to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Amnesty International, Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) and Human Rights Watch, protested their exclusion from the proceedings and urged the US government to rethink its position. In its written response, the Department of Defense refused to allow Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to attend the military commissions on the basis of “limited courtroom seating and other logistical issues.”
“These space constraints are being used as a pretext to keep out groups who have been critical of the commissions,” said Elisa Massimino, Washington Director of Human Rights First. “The Pentagon used its promise that the trials would be open to the public to reassure people that the trials would be fair. But now it appears ‘open’ doesn't really mean open. It means ‘open only to hand-picked press and not to anyone who’s been critical.’”
The rights groups acknowledge that the size of the courtroom, or any overflow room with video access, is a limiting factor in any trial. However, they charge that space factors are being used “as a pretext to exclude a whole category of observers with internationally recognized expertise in trial monitoring. Even acknowledging the unique difficulties caused by holding the commissions at the US naval base in Cuba -- a problem of the Bush administration’s own making -- the government should not be allowed to select observers in an effort to control coverage of these internationally significant trials. “
“The US, in the State Department’s Reports on Human Rights, annually criticizes other governments for failing to accommodate trial monitors,” said Alex Arriaga, director of government relations at Amnesty International USA. “Allowing media coverage while pleading insufficient space for human rights groups smacks of fear of informed criticism, and will only fuel the perception that tribunals will be show trials.”
By William Fisher
Critics of The US State Department’s recently released Human Rights Report for 2003 are charging that the Report fails to address human rights abuses in the United States. Some believe that this omission exposes a current American double standard, and raises the question of whether the US has the credibility to launch its Greater Middle East Initiative.
The Initiative, expected to be proposed at the G8 summit in June, is a key element of President Bush’s effort to ‘democratize’ the Middle East. It has been widely criticized by Arab governments in the region as a neo-colonialist effort to impose an American model of democracy on a group of widely differing sovereign states. Now, some Arab spokesmen – as well as a number of US human rights groups – are asking whether the pot should be allowed to call the kettle black.
The double-standard accusation stems from measures taken by the US in the ‘war on terror’ since 9/11. It includes the Government’s enforcement of some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, particularly sneak-and-peek search and surveillance, indefinite detention of US citizens without charge or access to lawyers, rounding up of hundreds of Muslims on suspicion of immigration violations, rules announced by the Pentagon for its upcoming Military Tribunals, and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Detention of US citizens is seen by human rights groups as a particularly egregious breach of Constitutional protections. Two citizens, Jose Padilla and Yasser Esam Hamdi, have been classified as enemy combatants and held incommunicado in US military brigs for nearly two years. While the Administration had previously insisted that national security would be harmed if the military’s interrogation of Hamdi and Padilla were interrupted by visits from lawyers, it recently decided that this danger no longer existed, and granted the men access to their attorneys. At the same time, the Administration is taking their case to the Supreme Court, where it will claim that there are no legal limits to its power over terrorist suspects. The Court is being asked to rule on whether US citizens can be subject to unconstrained executive authority.
However, even in granting the two men access to counsel, the Pentagon emphasizes that it is doing so “as a matter of discretion and military authority.” It contends that neither domestic nor international law compels such access. According to Jamie Fellner, Director of the US Program for Human Rights Watch, “under the restrictive rules imposed by the Pentagon, the legal visits are nothing more than an empty façade… Although the two men can see and speak with their lawyers, they cannot consult with them in any meaningful way.”
The reason, Fellner says, is that “under the Pentagon’s rules, the meetings between lawyers and these particular clients are not confidential. Rather than the customary attorney-client privilege, which protects the secrecy of discussions between lawyers and the people they represent, these meetings are completely open to the military. Indeed, a military official is present at each meeting, and everything is videotaped and audio-recorded….” Complicating matters further, under the Pentagon’s restrictions, every word Hamdi says to his lawyer is classified. After holding a ninety-minute meeting under these restrictions, Frank Dunham, Hamdi’s lawyer, says he still does not know his client’s version of the facts – and cannot ask with military representatives present.
The Pentagon indicated to Dunham that anything Hamdi revealed would not be used against him in a criminal prosecution. But Hamdi is not being prosecuted—and anything he says could affect the military’s determination as to whether his continued detention is warranted. The Pentagon’s rules cripple Dunham’s ability to build a case for Hamdi’s release from detention.
The Pentagon has also refused to allow three leading human rights groups to attend and observe military commission trials of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
In a letter to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Amnesty International, Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) and Human Rights Watch, protested their exclusion from the proceedings and urged the US government to rethink its position. In its written response, the Department of Defense refused to allow Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to attend the military commissions on the basis of “limited courtroom seating and other logistical issues.”
“These space constraints are being used as a pretext to keep out groups who have been critical of the commissions,” said Elisa Massimino, Washington Director of Human Rights First. “The Pentagon used its promise that the trials would be open to the public to reassure people that the trials would be fair. But now it appears ‘open’ doesn't really mean open. It means ‘open only to hand-picked press and not to anyone who’s been critical.’”
The rights groups acknowledge that the size of the courtroom, or any overflow room with video access, is a limiting factor in any trial. However, they charge that space factors are being used “as a pretext to exclude a whole category of observers with internationally recognized expertise in trial monitoring. Even acknowledging the unique difficulties caused by holding the commissions at the US naval base in Cuba -- a problem of the Bush administration’s own making -- the government should not be allowed to select observers in an effort to control coverage of these internationally significant trials. “
“The US, in the State Department’s Reports on Human Rights, annually criticizes other governments for failing to accommodate trial monitors,” said Alex Arriaga, director of government relations at Amnesty International USA. “Allowing media coverage while pleading insufficient space for human rights groups smacks of fear of informed criticism, and will only fuel the perception that tribunals will be show trials.”
IDEOLOGY OVER SCIENCE
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
If you think WMD is the only information being manipulated by the Bush Administration, have a look at what they’re doing to taxpayer-funded science.
A report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) charges that the Bush Administration has routinely edited reports, deleted reports, ignored reports, hidden reports on shelves, provided inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, issued erroneous international communications, and gagged scientists. More than 60 Nobel laureates, winners of the National Medal of Science, heads of leading universities and biomedical research institutes, and former presidential science advisers, have called on Congress to investigate. Here are some examples:
Abstinence education, where the Administration has changed sex education performance measures to produce the appearance that scientific evidence supports abstinence-only programs. President Bush has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its web site. In 2002, all five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only.” CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its web site.
Condom use, HIV / AIDS Policies and Research, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC web site. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence. A revised fact sheet begins by emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
Stem Cell Research, where, in banning federal funding for research on new stem cell lines, President Bush stated that “more than 60 genetically diverse" lines were available for potential research. Soon thereafter, HHS Secretary Thompson acknowledged that the correct number was only about 24 to 25. Still later, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni told Congress that only 11 stem cell lines were widely available to researchers.
Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed; The White House added so many hedges to the climate change section of the EPA's report card on the environment last spring that former administrator Christie Whitman deleted the section rather than publish one that was so scientifically inaccurate.
Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed. Under Secretary of Defense Edward Aldridge told a Senate panel that by the end of 2004, the system would be 90% effective in intercepting missiles from the Korean peninsula. In April 2003, the General Accounting Office found the President’s plan unworkable and even dangerous. Under Secretary Aldridge’s claim of 90% effectiveness “is not supported by any publicly available evidence, and it appears not to comport with the Pentagon’s own classified estimates.”
Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld. Scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Interior Department, had prepared such an analysis showing that the new Corps proposal would “encourage the destruction of stream channels and lead to increased loss of aquatic functions.” Interior Secretary Norton, however, failed to submit the scientists’ comments to the Corps. The Corps subsequently issued rules that weakened key wetland protections.
Abortion and breast cancer, where social conservatives campaigned to require women to be “counseled” about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists.
The Waxman Report also charges that the Bush Administration is manipulating Scientific Advisory Committees to advance its political and ideological agenda. Examples include:
Appointing unqualified persons with industry ties. After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children’s brains.
Appointing unqualified persons with ideological agendas. The Department of Health and Human Services nominated to the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee an anti-abortion activist, Dr. David Hager, who recommends that women read the bible for relief of premenstrual symptoms. The appointee’s principal credential appears to be his opposition to the “morning after” birth control pill, RU-486.
Stacking advisory committees. The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of the key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health. Several of the new members were long-time industry consultants. The Bush Administration appointed a prominent advocate of abstinence-only programs to the Advisory Committee to the CDC’s Director.
Opposing qualified experts. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected a widely respected expert’s nomination to a grant review panel on workplace safety after it became clear that she supported rules to protect workers from musculoskeletal injuries, rules that the Bush Administration opposes. The head of the panel called the rejection “directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent.”
Are we to believe that all of the above are disconnected and isolated coincidences? Such is the contention of the Bush Administration, though Bush science adviser John H. Marburger does admit to "a disconnect between the administration and the science community."
Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that “now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.” It’s time he had a talk with his son.
By William Fisher
If you think WMD is the only information being manipulated by the Bush Administration, have a look at what they’re doing to taxpayer-funded science.
A report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) charges that the Bush Administration has routinely edited reports, deleted reports, ignored reports, hidden reports on shelves, provided inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, issued erroneous international communications, and gagged scientists. More than 60 Nobel laureates, winners of the National Medal of Science, heads of leading universities and biomedical research institutes, and former presidential science advisers, have called on Congress to investigate. Here are some examples:
Abstinence education, where the Administration has changed sex education performance measures to produce the appearance that scientific evidence supports abstinence-only programs. President Bush has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its web site. In 2002, all five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only.” CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its web site.
Condom use, HIV / AIDS Policies and Research, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC web site. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence. A revised fact sheet begins by emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
Stem Cell Research, where, in banning federal funding for research on new stem cell lines, President Bush stated that “more than 60 genetically diverse" lines were available for potential research. Soon thereafter, HHS Secretary Thompson acknowledged that the correct number was only about 24 to 25. Still later, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni told Congress that only 11 stem cell lines were widely available to researchers.
Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed; The White House added so many hedges to the climate change section of the EPA's report card on the environment last spring that former administrator Christie Whitman deleted the section rather than publish one that was so scientifically inaccurate.
Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed. Under Secretary of Defense Edward Aldridge told a Senate panel that by the end of 2004, the system would be 90% effective in intercepting missiles from the Korean peninsula. In April 2003, the General Accounting Office found the President’s plan unworkable and even dangerous. Under Secretary Aldridge’s claim of 90% effectiveness “is not supported by any publicly available evidence, and it appears not to comport with the Pentagon’s own classified estimates.”
Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld. Scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Interior Department, had prepared such an analysis showing that the new Corps proposal would “encourage the destruction of stream channels and lead to increased loss of aquatic functions.” Interior Secretary Norton, however, failed to submit the scientists’ comments to the Corps. The Corps subsequently issued rules that weakened key wetland protections.
Abortion and breast cancer, where social conservatives campaigned to require women to be “counseled” about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists.
The Waxman Report also charges that the Bush Administration is manipulating Scientific Advisory Committees to advance its political and ideological agenda. Examples include:
Appointing unqualified persons with industry ties. After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children’s brains.
Appointing unqualified persons with ideological agendas. The Department of Health and Human Services nominated to the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee an anti-abortion activist, Dr. David Hager, who recommends that women read the bible for relief of premenstrual symptoms. The appointee’s principal credential appears to be his opposition to the “morning after” birth control pill, RU-486.
Stacking advisory committees. The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of the key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health. Several of the new members were long-time industry consultants. The Bush Administration appointed a prominent advocate of abstinence-only programs to the Advisory Committee to the CDC’s Director.
Opposing qualified experts. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected a widely respected expert’s nomination to a grant review panel on workplace safety after it became clear that she supported rules to protect workers from musculoskeletal injuries, rules that the Bush Administration opposes. The head of the panel called the rejection “directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent.”
Are we to believe that all of the above are disconnected and isolated coincidences? Such is the contention of the Bush Administration, though Bush science adviser John H. Marburger does admit to "a disconnect between the administration and the science community."
Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that “now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.” It’s time he had a talk with his son.
EGYPT: THE PRESS FREEDOM CHARADE
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
No journalist in Egypt “will ever be imprisoned again for their opinions."
So proclaimed the jubilant chairman of Egypt’s Press Syndicate to the recent General Congress of Journalists. The chairman said that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had abolished prison sentences for ‘publication offenses’. The President had rejected "any interference that could affect the independence of the Egyptian press or restrict the freedom of expression and opinion".
According to Al-Ahram, one of Egypt’s most prominent newspapers, “shouts rang through the crowd, and the applause lasted for several minutes.”
Little wonder. For years, Egyptian journalists have been campaigning unsuccessfully to end prosecutions for ‘publication offences’.
But how real are these reforms? Journalists were posing that question even before the cheering died down. A columnist for Al-Ahram said: "Although it is a positive step, it is not enough. There are several other crucial steps that need to be taken." She cited the right to establish newspapers, and the lifting of bans imposed on opposition and independent newspapers.
Prominent columnist Fahmy Howeidy argued that, without more vital forms of political reform, any other changes were trivial. Howeidy said there had to be a change in the basic relationship between the government and the press. "Journalists should not work for the government," he said. "They should act as government watchdogs. No newspaper should be a mouthpiece for the government or even for businessmen."
Another journalist -- whose publication has been the subject of repeated censorship by the Government -- told this writer, “To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly optimistic about this move. There are still plenty of things that journalists can do that will land them in jail -- for instance, tarnishing Egypt's image abroad. I'll get excited when they repeal the Emergency Laws….”
Egypt and its journalists have lived under the so-called Emergency Laws since the 1980s. The measures give the government unbridled powers to curtail free speech, arrest and detain ‘suspects’ for long periods without legal representation or specific charges, convict citizens for a wide range of ‘crimes’, including speech, writing or broadcasting that, in the Government’s opinion, brings disrespect to the State. The laws have been fiercely criticized by local and international human rights groups and by the US State Department in its annual human rights reports over a number of years.
The Journalists’ Syndicate’s relationship to the Government is itself suspect. The country’s Prime Minister, Atef Ebeid, recently made a substantial grant to the syndicate’s pension fund, as well as a salary increases for journalists. The government had waved both carrots prior to last July's elections, promising them as ‘perks’ if their candidate won.
Their candidate did not win. Journalists elected its new syndicate chairman last July, the first time in nearly two decades the post was secured by a candidate not allied to the government. The new chairman said that his election “clearly signaled the desire for change, not only among journalists but also throughout society as a whole.”
The Government’s press decision follows several other ‘reform’ initiatives taken by the Mubarak government over the past few months. The president abolished military courts and hard labor prison sentences, and ordered the formation of the National Council for Human Rights. The Council, headed by former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Galli, has been widely criticized by human rights groups, principally because its role is strictly advisory role and it has no enforcement authority.
"Via negotiations," the new Press Syndicate chairman said, "we are establishing a respectful relationship between the government and the press. We are not in confrontation with the government…political reform is bound to occur, and only then will the journalistic profession's ailments be cured. If there is political reform then ultimately there should be press reforms. The president's decision is an achievement along [that path]."
This language provides a chilling insight into the state of the press in Egypt – and throughout most of the Middle East and North Africa. The press should not have to ‘negotiate’ with government to secure its freedoms. And the press should be expected to be ‘in confrontation with the government’. Unless it is, it will continue to be unable to create informed public opinion.
By William Fisher
No journalist in Egypt “will ever be imprisoned again for their opinions."
So proclaimed the jubilant chairman of Egypt’s Press Syndicate to the recent General Congress of Journalists. The chairman said that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had abolished prison sentences for ‘publication offenses’. The President had rejected "any interference that could affect the independence of the Egyptian press or restrict the freedom of expression and opinion".
According to Al-Ahram, one of Egypt’s most prominent newspapers, “shouts rang through the crowd, and the applause lasted for several minutes.”
Little wonder. For years, Egyptian journalists have been campaigning unsuccessfully to end prosecutions for ‘publication offences’.
But how real are these reforms? Journalists were posing that question even before the cheering died down. A columnist for Al-Ahram said: "Although it is a positive step, it is not enough. There are several other crucial steps that need to be taken." She cited the right to establish newspapers, and the lifting of bans imposed on opposition and independent newspapers.
Prominent columnist Fahmy Howeidy argued that, without more vital forms of political reform, any other changes were trivial. Howeidy said there had to be a change in the basic relationship between the government and the press. "Journalists should not work for the government," he said. "They should act as government watchdogs. No newspaper should be a mouthpiece for the government or even for businessmen."
Another journalist -- whose publication has been the subject of repeated censorship by the Government -- told this writer, “To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly optimistic about this move. There are still plenty of things that journalists can do that will land them in jail -- for instance, tarnishing Egypt's image abroad. I'll get excited when they repeal the Emergency Laws….”
Egypt and its journalists have lived under the so-called Emergency Laws since the 1980s. The measures give the government unbridled powers to curtail free speech, arrest and detain ‘suspects’ for long periods without legal representation or specific charges, convict citizens for a wide range of ‘crimes’, including speech, writing or broadcasting that, in the Government’s opinion, brings disrespect to the State. The laws have been fiercely criticized by local and international human rights groups and by the US State Department in its annual human rights reports over a number of years.
The Journalists’ Syndicate’s relationship to the Government is itself suspect. The country’s Prime Minister, Atef Ebeid, recently made a substantial grant to the syndicate’s pension fund, as well as a salary increases for journalists. The government had waved both carrots prior to last July's elections, promising them as ‘perks’ if their candidate won.
Their candidate did not win. Journalists elected its new syndicate chairman last July, the first time in nearly two decades the post was secured by a candidate not allied to the government. The new chairman said that his election “clearly signaled the desire for change, not only among journalists but also throughout society as a whole.”
The Government’s press decision follows several other ‘reform’ initiatives taken by the Mubarak government over the past few months. The president abolished military courts and hard labor prison sentences, and ordered the formation of the National Council for Human Rights. The Council, headed by former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Galli, has been widely criticized by human rights groups, principally because its role is strictly advisory role and it has no enforcement authority.
"Via negotiations," the new Press Syndicate chairman said, "we are establishing a respectful relationship between the government and the press. We are not in confrontation with the government…political reform is bound to occur, and only then will the journalistic profession's ailments be cured. If there is political reform then ultimately there should be press reforms. The president's decision is an achievement along [that path]."
This language provides a chilling insight into the state of the press in Egypt – and throughout most of the Middle East and North Africa. The press should not have to ‘negotiate’ with government to secure its freedoms. And the press should be expected to be ‘in confrontation with the government’. Unless it is, it will continue to be unable to create informed public opinion.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
HUMAN RIGHTS IN EGYPT: SUBSTANCE OR COSMETICS?
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
Last month, after many months of wrangling -- and following considerable pressure from the United States and other major financial donors -- the Egyptian Government established its National Council on Human Rights. (NCHR). This move by the Mubarak regime – a key element of a high-profile effort led by Mubarak’s son, Gamal, to create a more transparent and equitable Egyptian society -- has met with mixed responses. Many long-time human rights advocates believe the move is essentially cosmetic. Those more closely identified with Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party see the move as an important first baby step in an infant Egyptian reform process.
The NCHR’s functions include developing a national plan for the protection of human rights, verifying citizens' complaints regarding human rights abuses, ensuring honest implementation of international treaties on human rights, coordinating with local and international human rights organizations, fostering a culture of human rights, and presenting an annual report on the human rights situation to the president, the Shura Council -- a kind of House of Lords with no legislative authority -- and the Egyptian parliament, the People's Assembly. Notably absent from this Mission is any authority to enforce its findings. The NCHR will be “affiliated to” the Shura Council, which will appoint the NCHR’s 27 members for renewable terms of three years. The NCHR members include former ministers, human rights activists, the head of the journalists’ syndicate, the president of the bar association, and legal experts.
The Government gave the Council high profile status from the outset. It appointed Boutros Boutros-Gali, former UN Secretary General, to head the body. A former deputy prime minister and minister of trade, Boutros-Gali is a Christian. The symbolism of his selection was likely directed toward many who charge that Egypt systematically discriminates against the 6% of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians.
The London-based rights group Amnesty International cautiously welcomed the new council. "This is a positive step. Nevertheless, we have to see if the body will effect any real change," said the organization's Middle East spokeswoman.
Egyptian critics of the NCHR contend it is designed to muffle criticism from the United States, the United Nations, and numerous local and international human rights groups. One Egyptian activist dismissed the council as “window-dressing”. Another, Gasser Abdel Razzak, a board member of the country’s oldest human rights group, the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights (EOHR), said there has been “…no change of policy toward human rights,” citing the government’s continuing arrests of both Islamists and liberals, its ‘brutal’ crackdown on protests against the US-led war in Iraq, and its renewal last year of the decades-old state of emergency. Independent MP Mortada Mansour characterized the NCHR as " a toothless body aimed at giving some kind of political prestige to certain public figures…to provide Egypt with a sort of democratic camouflage." Another human rights group, Al Nadim, which specializes in treatment of victims of violence, said: “If this council is about convincing the international community that Egypt is an oasis of democracy, we shall not participate in this theatrical play... (our) position…(is)…exposing the dirty laundry is not harmful. What is harmful is to leave it to rot, like the rotting of victims’ wounds in the darkness of Egyptian prison and police station cells.”
But according to Justice Minister Farouk Seif El- Nasr, the proposed NCHR is "a striking new example of democratic reform in the Arab world". It was significant, he said, that a law rather than a presidential decree would create the NCHR. "This is necessary to ensure the permanence of its activities," the minister said. However, he made it clear that the NCHR is a consultative council -- "a watchdog commission with no powers (that) issues recommendations rather than gives binding orders." He noted that Saudi Arabia had recently set up a human rights group and that other Arab countries were taking similar initiatives. He cited Jordan’s recent parliamentary elections allowing opposition Islamic candidates to regain a foothold after boycotting the 1997 elections, and Morocco’s parliamentary elections that reserved nearly 10 percent of seats for women.
The establishment of the NCHR was part of a much heralded package of measures that includes scrapping the 1980s Law 108 on state security courts, and abolishing the hard labor penalty in the penal code. Law 108 allows security courts to try civilians on criminal charges before state security courts, giving prosecutors the power to hold defendants in custody for as long as six months, pending investigation of certain charges Independent MPs described the revocation of hard labor as cosmetic since the penalty has not been applied in Egypt since 1983. Mubarak opponents have called repeatedly for repeal of the entire Emergency Law, initially enacted in the 1980s to curb radical Islamists following the assassination of President Anwar Sadat and renewed last year.
The NCHR faces formidable challenges. It does not report to the President. It was established with little or no consultation with opposition politicians, human rights groups, or other NGOs. Its scope and authority are still unclear. Groups like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the US State Department have continually criticized Egypt’s human rights record, most recently for practicing torture in Egyptian prisons. Amnesty claims that seven people died in Egypt last year as a result of systematic and widespread torture by state security officials and police officers, including electric shocks, beatings, whippings and other abuses. Not least among the Council’s challenges is a law that imposes harsh restrictions on NGOs, and its relationship to the myriad of draconian regulations established under the so-called Emergency Law.
Egypt justifies much of its repression on the need to curb radical Islamists. Nonetheless, the world will be watching carefully to see whether the country can successfully walk the tightrope of dealing with terrorists while improving fundamental civil liberties. In this effort, it is not alone. Its principal critic, the United States, is currently struggling to achieve the same balance.
By William Fisher
Last month, after many months of wrangling -- and following considerable pressure from the United States and other major financial donors -- the Egyptian Government established its National Council on Human Rights. (NCHR). This move by the Mubarak regime – a key element of a high-profile effort led by Mubarak’s son, Gamal, to create a more transparent and equitable Egyptian society -- has met with mixed responses. Many long-time human rights advocates believe the move is essentially cosmetic. Those more closely identified with Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party see the move as an important first baby step in an infant Egyptian reform process.
The NCHR’s functions include developing a national plan for the protection of human rights, verifying citizens' complaints regarding human rights abuses, ensuring honest implementation of international treaties on human rights, coordinating with local and international human rights organizations, fostering a culture of human rights, and presenting an annual report on the human rights situation to the president, the Shura Council -- a kind of House of Lords with no legislative authority -- and the Egyptian parliament, the People's Assembly. Notably absent from this Mission is any authority to enforce its findings. The NCHR will be “affiliated to” the Shura Council, which will appoint the NCHR’s 27 members for renewable terms of three years. The NCHR members include former ministers, human rights activists, the head of the journalists’ syndicate, the president of the bar association, and legal experts.
The Government gave the Council high profile status from the outset. It appointed Boutros Boutros-Gali, former UN Secretary General, to head the body. A former deputy prime minister and minister of trade, Boutros-Gali is a Christian. The symbolism of his selection was likely directed toward many who charge that Egypt systematically discriminates against the 6% of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians.
The London-based rights group Amnesty International cautiously welcomed the new council. "This is a positive step. Nevertheless, we have to see if the body will effect any real change," said the organization's Middle East spokeswoman.
Egyptian critics of the NCHR contend it is designed to muffle criticism from the United States, the United Nations, and numerous local and international human rights groups. One Egyptian activist dismissed the council as “window-dressing”. Another, Gasser Abdel Razzak, a board member of the country’s oldest human rights group, the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights (EOHR), said there has been “…no change of policy toward human rights,” citing the government’s continuing arrests of both Islamists and liberals, its ‘brutal’ crackdown on protests against the US-led war in Iraq, and its renewal last year of the decades-old state of emergency. Independent MP Mortada Mansour characterized the NCHR as " a toothless body aimed at giving some kind of political prestige to certain public figures…to provide Egypt with a sort of democratic camouflage." Another human rights group, Al Nadim, which specializes in treatment of victims of violence, said: “If this council is about convincing the international community that Egypt is an oasis of democracy, we shall not participate in this theatrical play... (our) position…(is)…exposing the dirty laundry is not harmful. What is harmful is to leave it to rot, like the rotting of victims’ wounds in the darkness of Egyptian prison and police station cells.”
But according to Justice Minister Farouk Seif El- Nasr, the proposed NCHR is "a striking new example of democratic reform in the Arab world". It was significant, he said, that a law rather than a presidential decree would create the NCHR. "This is necessary to ensure the permanence of its activities," the minister said. However, he made it clear that the NCHR is a consultative council -- "a watchdog commission with no powers (that) issues recommendations rather than gives binding orders." He noted that Saudi Arabia had recently set up a human rights group and that other Arab countries were taking similar initiatives. He cited Jordan’s recent parliamentary elections allowing opposition Islamic candidates to regain a foothold after boycotting the 1997 elections, and Morocco’s parliamentary elections that reserved nearly 10 percent of seats for women.
The establishment of the NCHR was part of a much heralded package of measures that includes scrapping the 1980s Law 108 on state security courts, and abolishing the hard labor penalty in the penal code. Law 108 allows security courts to try civilians on criminal charges before state security courts, giving prosecutors the power to hold defendants in custody for as long as six months, pending investigation of certain charges Independent MPs described the revocation of hard labor as cosmetic since the penalty has not been applied in Egypt since 1983. Mubarak opponents have called repeatedly for repeal of the entire Emergency Law, initially enacted in the 1980s to curb radical Islamists following the assassination of President Anwar Sadat and renewed last year.
The NCHR faces formidable challenges. It does not report to the President. It was established with little or no consultation with opposition politicians, human rights groups, or other NGOs. Its scope and authority are still unclear. Groups like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the US State Department have continually criticized Egypt’s human rights record, most recently for practicing torture in Egyptian prisons. Amnesty claims that seven people died in Egypt last year as a result of systematic and widespread torture by state security officials and police officers, including electric shocks, beatings, whippings and other abuses. Not least among the Council’s challenges is a law that imposes harsh restrictions on NGOs, and its relationship to the myriad of draconian regulations established under the so-called Emergency Law.
Egypt justifies much of its repression on the need to curb radical Islamists. Nonetheless, the world will be watching carefully to see whether the country can successfully walk the tightrope of dealing with terrorists while improving fundamental civil liberties. In this effort, it is not alone. Its principal critic, the United States, is currently struggling to achieve the same balance.
A PERSON OF INTEREST
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
Steven Hatfill had just about disappeared from American media attention until last August. That was when the former US Government virologist filed suit against Attorney General John Ashcroft and the US Justice Department for carrying out an unprecedented campaign of harassment, invading his privacy and ruining his reputation.
You may recall that the Justice Department named Dr. Hatfill “a person of interest” in the still-unsolved 2001 anthrax attacks. As a result, his suit contends, he has been under 24-hour surveillance and the subject of wiretaps by the FBI. Hatfill has denied any role in the attacks and has never been charged with any crime. His lawsuit seeks to clear his name and recover unspecified monetary damages.
Hatfill once worked as a researcher at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Hatfill says he never worked with infectious diseases such as anthrax, however. His lawyers contend that the government linked him to the attacks to make it seem that the investigation was making progress. The attacks consisted of anthrax-laced envelopes being sent to government and media offices. Five people died and 17 others were sickened.
In August 2001, Hatfill lost his security clearance after a CIA-administered polygraph test yielded inconclusive results. After losing his clearance, Hatfill appealed the decision, but his employer terminated him in March 2002 as the FBI intensified its scrutiny.
According to the lawsuit, Hatfill is still under 24-hour surveillance, leaving him unable to freely talk to his girlfriend, family or friends. "He has been a target of a coordinated campaign to publicly implicate him in a crime he did not commit," Hatfill's attorney told a news conference. Hatfill also said the Justice Department was responsible for his firing last August from a job directing bioterrorism research at Louisiana State University. The lawsuit says he's been unemployed since and that other potential employers have been scared off from hiring him because he is followed by a team of five to seven FBI agents. His lawyer said federal authorities "have trampled Dr. Hatfill's constitutional rights and they have destroyed his life."
Citing the ongoing criminal investigation and concerns about national security, the Justice Department has sought to have Hatfill’s suit dismissed and, meanwhile, is trying to persuade a Federal judge to delay it. Disclosure of what the FBI knows about the deadly attacks could enable terrorists to engineer biological weapons to escape detection, the FBI says. Richard L. Lambert, the FBI inspector in charge of what is being called the "Amerithrax" investigation, says in a court document that Hatfill's lawsuit could jeopardize the probe and expose national secrets related to US bioweapons defense measures.
The judge hearing Dr. Hatfill's suit said he "is not convinced that allowing (the suit) to proceed will endanger the FBI's investigation of the anthrax letters". He said the government has not persuaded him to postpone the suit until the anthrax case is solved, as Justice Department lawyers requested. "Is Mr. Hatfill still a suspect? Are there any suspects? ", The judge asked. He added: " At some point…if Mr. Hatfill did not commit this crime, he should get his life back." The judge is expected to issue a written ruling on the government's request to freeze the lawsuit or hold an additional hearing.
According to Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, even if the case gets to Court, Hatfill faces an uphill battle. Prosecutors are allowed to publicly identify a person they are seeking to interview in a criminal investigation. Therefore, Hatfill would have to prove that his name was singled out with malicious purpose, Turley said. That usually requires a so-called "smoking gun" document that rarely exists, he said.
Meanwhile, a Federal grand jury has been empanelled and, in recent months, many of Hatfill's friends and colleagues and his former employers report that they have provided documents under grand jury subpoena. In its court filings responding to Hatfill’s suit, the FBI stopped short of saying that Hatfill is still being investigated, and other Federal officials have said Hatfill is not a suspect and that they have no evidence directly linking him to the attacks
Frustrated FBI officials say the anthrax investigation is still ongoing – a frustration doubtless made even more intense by the recent discovery of the poison toxin Ricin in the mailroom of the Senate Majority Leader. The FBI insists that every investigative technique available to them has been employed in the anthrax investigation, including: round-the-clock surveillances; eavesdropping and searches conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; agents conducting 5,000 interviews and serving more than 1,700 grand jury subpoenas; hundreds of polygraphs; agents compiling minute-by-minute chronologies of the lives of some subjects, examining their whereabouts when the letters were sent; involvement by 40 of the FBI's 56 field offices and many of its 44 overseas legal attachés; establishing 112 separate databases to store information about the case; and offering a reward of $2.5 million. The FBI also has hired a former Hatfill colleague, who provided the bureau with information about him. Legal experts have characterized this as an unusual move that could pose an appearance of conflict of interest if the government tries to use the employee as a prosecution witness.
Whether or not he is ever charged with or convicted of anything, the Hatfill saga is a chilling reminder of what can – and does -- happen to ordinary US citizens during times of extraordinary national fear and anxiety. “Temporary” suspension of Constitutional protections have occurred many times in US history. Over time, most -- though not all – of these abuses have been corrected. But ‘over time’ offers little consolation to people whose names are widely publicized but who are never charged. That is why the Constitution provides for specific charges and speedy trials. It is time to prohibit law enforcement from using the phrase ‘person of interest’. That language does not establish guilt or innocence; it does not even designate a person as a suspect. Rather, it places the victim in a kind of legal limbo tantamount to having been accused, tried and convicted. It is time for the Justice Department to either charge Dr. Hatfill, or publicly apologize to him and let him get on with his life.
."
Steven Hatfill had just about disappeared from American media attention until last August. That was when the former US Government virologist filed suit against Attorney General John Ashcroft and the US Justice Department for carrying out an unprecedented campaign of harassment, invading his privacy and ruining his reputation.
You may recall that the Justice Department named Dr. Hatfill “a person of interest” in the still-unsolved 2001 anthrax attacks. As a result, his suit contends, he has been under 24-hour surveillance and the subject of wiretaps by the FBI. Hatfill has denied any role in the attacks and has never been charged with any crime. His lawsuit seeks to clear his name and recover unspecified monetary damages.
Hatfill once worked as a researcher at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Hatfill says he never worked with infectious diseases such as anthrax, however. His lawyers contend that the government linked him to the attacks to make it seem that the investigation was making progress. The attacks consisted of anthrax-laced envelopes being sent to government and media offices. Five people died and 17 others were sickened.
In August 2001, Hatfill lost his security clearance after a CIA-administered polygraph test yielded inconclusive results. After losing his clearance, Hatfill appealed the decision, but his employer terminated him in March 2002 as the FBI intensified its scrutiny.
According to the lawsuit, Hatfill is still under 24-hour surveillance, leaving him unable to freely talk to his girlfriend, family or friends. "He has been a target of a coordinated campaign to publicly implicate him in a crime he did not commit," Hatfill's attorney told a news conference. Hatfill also said the Justice Department was responsible for his firing last August from a job directing bioterrorism research at Louisiana State University. The lawsuit says he's been unemployed since and that other potential employers have been scared off from hiring him because he is followed by a team of five to seven FBI agents. His lawyer said federal authorities "have trampled Dr. Hatfill's constitutional rights and they have destroyed his life."
Citing the ongoing criminal investigation and concerns about national security, the Justice Department has sought to have Hatfill’s suit dismissed and, meanwhile, is trying to persuade a Federal judge to delay it. Disclosure of what the FBI knows about the deadly attacks could enable terrorists to engineer biological weapons to escape detection, the FBI says. Richard L. Lambert, the FBI inspector in charge of what is being called the "Amerithrax" investigation, says in a court document that Hatfill's lawsuit could jeopardize the probe and expose national secrets related to US bioweapons defense measures.
The judge hearing Dr. Hatfill's suit said he "is not convinced that allowing (the suit) to proceed will endanger the FBI's investigation of the anthrax letters". He said the government has not persuaded him to postpone the suit until the anthrax case is solved, as Justice Department lawyers requested. "Is Mr. Hatfill still a suspect? Are there any suspects? ", The judge asked. He added: " At some point…if Mr. Hatfill did not commit this crime, he should get his life back." The judge is expected to issue a written ruling on the government's request to freeze the lawsuit or hold an additional hearing.
According to Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, even if the case gets to Court, Hatfill faces an uphill battle. Prosecutors are allowed to publicly identify a person they are seeking to interview in a criminal investigation. Therefore, Hatfill would have to prove that his name was singled out with malicious purpose, Turley said. That usually requires a so-called "smoking gun" document that rarely exists, he said.
Meanwhile, a Federal grand jury has been empanelled and, in recent months, many of Hatfill's friends and colleagues and his former employers report that they have provided documents under grand jury subpoena. In its court filings responding to Hatfill’s suit, the FBI stopped short of saying that Hatfill is still being investigated, and other Federal officials have said Hatfill is not a suspect and that they have no evidence directly linking him to the attacks
Frustrated FBI officials say the anthrax investigation is still ongoing – a frustration doubtless made even more intense by the recent discovery of the poison toxin Ricin in the mailroom of the Senate Majority Leader. The FBI insists that every investigative technique available to them has been employed in the anthrax investigation, including: round-the-clock surveillances; eavesdropping and searches conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; agents conducting 5,000 interviews and serving more than 1,700 grand jury subpoenas; hundreds of polygraphs; agents compiling minute-by-minute chronologies of the lives of some subjects, examining their whereabouts when the letters were sent; involvement by 40 of the FBI's 56 field offices and many of its 44 overseas legal attachés; establishing 112 separate databases to store information about the case; and offering a reward of $2.5 million. The FBI also has hired a former Hatfill colleague, who provided the bureau with information about him. Legal experts have characterized this as an unusual move that could pose an appearance of conflict of interest if the government tries to use the employee as a prosecution witness.
Whether or not he is ever charged with or convicted of anything, the Hatfill saga is a chilling reminder of what can – and does -- happen to ordinary US citizens during times of extraordinary national fear and anxiety. “Temporary” suspension of Constitutional protections have occurred many times in US history. Over time, most -- though not all – of these abuses have been corrected. But ‘over time’ offers little consolation to people whose names are widely publicized but who are never charged. That is why the Constitution provides for specific charges and speedy trials. It is time to prohibit law enforcement from using the phrase ‘person of interest’. That language does not establish guilt or innocence; it does not even designate a person as a suspect. Rather, it places the victim in a kind of legal limbo tantamount to having been accused, tried and convicted. It is time for the Justice Department to either charge Dr. Hatfill, or publicly apologize to him and let him get on with his life.
."
EXPORTING JOBS: WHAT ELSE IS NEW?
Feedback to: wfisher206@aol.com
By William Fisher
“Exporting Jobs” through outsourcing has become a hot story in the US media – and among presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail. But outsourcing has been a practice of rich-nation companies for decades. And it has been encouraged by successive administrations in Washington -- both Democrat and Republican – as a way to create jobs and stimulate economic development in poor countries.
So why are we treating outsourcing as something new?
First, the US economy is in bad shape, and failing to create jobs. So exporting any job is likely to attract attention and criticism.
Second, the nature of outsourcing has changed. Back in the Reagan years, US companies were encouraged to open plants or find subcontractors in developing countries. Investment Promotion was a major goal of US aid agencies – remember Reagan’s Caribbean Basin Initiative? The US Government flooded the ‘third world’ with consultants to help poorer countries attract US investment by providing them with factories and industrial parks, conducting campaigns to woo likely sectors of US industry, developing laws and regulations offering investors long tax holidays and other incentives, and streamlining the investment approval process. However, back then, it was blue-collar jobs that were being exported: mostly low-paying assembly-line type jobs. US companies that moved part of their production abroad got high marks and tax breaks from Washington – cold comfort to the thousands of textile and other workers who lost their jobs in the process. Today, outsourcing means the shipment of higher-paying white-collar high-tech jobs to countries with well-educated but much lower-paid workers.
Third, the nature of world trade has changed. The motivation of companies that turned to outsourcing was never about job creation in the developing world. It was about cutting costs and increasing profits -- and it still is. Two decades ago, these companies faced devastating competition from producers in countries like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. These countries had enormous reservoirs of low-cost, trainable labor, quite capable of sewing a garment, making a toy, or assembling a small motor. Today, these and many other developing countries have developed sizable cadres of highly educated business managers and employees capable of performing far more skilled operations, including designing and manufacturing computer software and other high-tech products. The earlier assembly-line skills have moved to even poorer countries, and continue to attract business from US employers who require these kinds of lower-level skills. Moreover, parts of the world once valued only for their cheap labor have become markets for the products of US and other producers. Like outsourcing, this is nothing new; US companies have been setting up operations in promising markets since before World War II. Today, the Internet and other technologies have made the process is faster and accessible to many more companies. Today we call it ‘globalization’, but it’s been around a long time.
Fourth, the recent spate of US corporate scandals has riveted public and media attention on the relentless ‘bottom line’ orientation of American management. The pay packages of many US CEOs are tied directly to company profitability and stock exchange share price. We are – and should be – outraged by
Enron-type criminal fraud and deception. But why should we be surprised that companies are constantly seeking to lower costs and increase profits? That used to be lauded as ‘efficiency’; today, it is dismissed as ‘greed’. If we see every US company as Enron, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Fifth, in today’s anti-corporate environment, critics almost invariably ignore a key element in the equation: stockholders. Stockholders determine share price, Board members, demand ever-greater returns on their investments, and create the environment that encourages CEOs to seek ever-larger remuneration packages. Surely this group bears some responsibility for exporting jobs.
The fact is that only a small fraction of the jobs lost over the past few years were ‘exported’ or ‘outsourced’. Most were lost to competition from other countries, to increases in our own productivity, and to layoffs during a recession. Most of them will never return. But we can’t become competitive again by protecting the steel industry or even making outsourcing illegal. Our strategy has to be to do what the American private sector has always done best: creating new industries that will provide new kinds of jobs. This cannot be a fast-track process, and people without jobs will continue to hurt for some time. But opportunities to build new industries are many, particularly in the life sciences. Taking advantage of them requires ideas, innovation, new skills, vision, capital – and the confidence to invest. Today, it is only confidence we lack. Yet these opportunities will be lost to others unless we are prepared to overcome our post-dot-com risk aversion.
By William Fisher
“Exporting Jobs” through outsourcing has become a hot story in the US media – and among presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail. But outsourcing has been a practice of rich-nation companies for decades. And it has been encouraged by successive administrations in Washington -- both Democrat and Republican – as a way to create jobs and stimulate economic development in poor countries.
So why are we treating outsourcing as something new?
First, the US economy is in bad shape, and failing to create jobs. So exporting any job is likely to attract attention and criticism.
Second, the nature of outsourcing has changed. Back in the Reagan years, US companies were encouraged to open plants or find subcontractors in developing countries. Investment Promotion was a major goal of US aid agencies – remember Reagan’s Caribbean Basin Initiative? The US Government flooded the ‘third world’ with consultants to help poorer countries attract US investment by providing them with factories and industrial parks, conducting campaigns to woo likely sectors of US industry, developing laws and regulations offering investors long tax holidays and other incentives, and streamlining the investment approval process. However, back then, it was blue-collar jobs that were being exported: mostly low-paying assembly-line type jobs. US companies that moved part of their production abroad got high marks and tax breaks from Washington – cold comfort to the thousands of textile and other workers who lost their jobs in the process. Today, outsourcing means the shipment of higher-paying white-collar high-tech jobs to countries with well-educated but much lower-paid workers.
Third, the nature of world trade has changed. The motivation of companies that turned to outsourcing was never about job creation in the developing world. It was about cutting costs and increasing profits -- and it still is. Two decades ago, these companies faced devastating competition from producers in countries like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. These countries had enormous reservoirs of low-cost, trainable labor, quite capable of sewing a garment, making a toy, or assembling a small motor. Today, these and many other developing countries have developed sizable cadres of highly educated business managers and employees capable of performing far more skilled operations, including designing and manufacturing computer software and other high-tech products. The earlier assembly-line skills have moved to even poorer countries, and continue to attract business from US employers who require these kinds of lower-level skills. Moreover, parts of the world once valued only for their cheap labor have become markets for the products of US and other producers. Like outsourcing, this is nothing new; US companies have been setting up operations in promising markets since before World War II. Today, the Internet and other technologies have made the process is faster and accessible to many more companies. Today we call it ‘globalization’, but it’s been around a long time.
Fourth, the recent spate of US corporate scandals has riveted public and media attention on the relentless ‘bottom line’ orientation of American management. The pay packages of many US CEOs are tied directly to company profitability and stock exchange share price. We are – and should be – outraged by
Enron-type criminal fraud and deception. But why should we be surprised that companies are constantly seeking to lower costs and increase profits? That used to be lauded as ‘efficiency’; today, it is dismissed as ‘greed’. If we see every US company as Enron, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Fifth, in today’s anti-corporate environment, critics almost invariably ignore a key element in the equation: stockholders. Stockholders determine share price, Board members, demand ever-greater returns on their investments, and create the environment that encourages CEOs to seek ever-larger remuneration packages. Surely this group bears some responsibility for exporting jobs.
The fact is that only a small fraction of the jobs lost over the past few years were ‘exported’ or ‘outsourced’. Most were lost to competition from other countries, to increases in our own productivity, and to layoffs during a recession. Most of them will never return. But we can’t become competitive again by protecting the steel industry or even making outsourcing illegal. Our strategy has to be to do what the American private sector has always done best: creating new industries that will provide new kinds of jobs. This cannot be a fast-track process, and people without jobs will continue to hurt for some time. But opportunities to build new industries are many, particularly in the life sciences. Taking advantage of them requires ideas, innovation, new skills, vision, capital – and the confidence to invest. Today, it is only confidence we lack. Yet these opportunities will be lost to others unless we are prepared to overcome our post-dot-com risk aversion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
